Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Obama initially agreed to release the photos but angered some of the supporters on the left when he reversed course.
AP Photo

President Barack Obama is enlisting two of his top generals to justify his decision to reverse course on the release of photos of detainee abuse, as the Justice Department pleads with a federal court to withdraw an order to disclose the photos.

The public versions of the declarations Gens. David Petraeus and Ray Odierno filed Thursday shed little light on the content of the disputed photos of prisoners allegedly abused in U.S. military custody, though Odierno said some of the images might offend “Arab cultural values.”

The Justice Department is asking the court to recall its mandate issued on April 27 requiring the government to reveal the pictures in connection with a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

Obama initially agreed to release the photos but angered some of the supporters on the left when he reversed course, saying it would put U.S. service members’ lives in danger.

“I have concluded that the official release of those images, even if redacted to obscure identifying information could reasonably be expected to adversely impact current military, political and civil efforts” in the Middle East and beyond, Petraeus, who heads up the U.S. Central Command, wrote in his declaration accompanying the motion.

Petraeus also said the images would “further endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors, civilians and contractors presently serving there,” Petraeus declared.

The court filing came on the same day the Pentagon and the White House denied a report in the London Daily Telegraph that the photos Obama is seeking to withhold from the ACLU include images of prisoners being raped. It was not clear if officials were denying the existence of the photos or simply denying that they were at issue in the pending lawsuit.

The court filings by Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno, also revealed some of the current U.S. military thinking on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The two generals, for instance, portrayed the situation in Iraq as on a razor’s edge.

Odierno, the commander of U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq, said the small teams of U.S. personnel installed on Iraqi bases and outposts would be in particular danger if new photos of alleged abuse were released. “The photos will likely cause a very public and emotional response in Iraq and in the larger Arab world because the images may touch on a number of deep-rooted Arab cultural values that will resonate with the Iraqi public,” he wrote. “This could be a destabilizing event for the prime minister and his government.”

The photos could even prompt some Iraqis thought to be loyal to the U.S. to switch sides, Odierno argued. “The publicity over the images could incite additional attacks on U.S. personnel by members of the Iraq Security Forces (“green-on-blue attacks”).

Odierno said the U.S. government’s concerns about the impact of the photos on upcoming Iraqi elections were based in part on discussions with an unnamed Sunni member of the Iraqi Parliament who said, “the Iraqi people would react poorly.”

Petraeus also said release of the photos would undermine the Pakistani government and complicate its cooperation with the U.S. “Newly released photos depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Afghanistan and Iraq would negatively affect the ongoing efforts by Pakistan to counter its internal extremist threat,” the general said.

Petraeus warned that, in Iraq, release of the photos could bolster those arguing that Iraqi citizens should have the right to vote up or down on key agreements with the U.S. “Pressure will mount on the prime minister to allow for a national referendum on the Security Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement,” the general said. He implied, but did not say directly, that the U.S. would view such a plebiscite as unwelcome.

The government asked for the stay in order to petition the Supreme Court to hear the case or to allow for the passage of pending legislation that would allow the government to keep the photos under wraps.

Petraeus said that while 21 images were directly covered by the court’s order, “a substantial number” of additional images are covered by the ACLU’s request.

An ACLU attorney, Jameel Jaffer, had no immediate comment on the government’s filing. However, the ACLU has said previously that the government, under the Bush administration, made similar national security arguments to the courts, which considered and rejected them.

The government filing acknowledges that Gen. Richard Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, submitted similar statements in court in 2005. While Odierno portrayed the situation in Iraq as on a razor’s edge, he conceded that “conditions in Iraq have improved since” the earlier declarations filed by Myers and Ham. “Iraq today is safer, but it is not without risk,” Odierno wrote.

Portions of the Petraeus and Odierno declarations were classified secret and blacked out in the copies released to the public and lawyers for those seeking release of the photos.

Readers' Comments (12)

So content wise, we know these photos will offend deep rooted Arab cultural values, as well as complicate the situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That doesn't tell us much. Guessing at cultural particulars won't be particuarlly revealing, unless it's with someone who actually knows the content. Soldiers raping prisoners also seems unlikely, as I try to believe some guilty conscience somewhere would have leaked that information some time ago. "Try" is the key word, of course.

But maybe it could be something a lot more simple. Something that would not offend American sensibilities to the same degree, making a cover up more palatable. Maybe we should read Arab, Pakistani, and Afghani cultural values as euphemism for Islamic values. I wouldn't be shocked if some of those pictures happen to feature a damaged Koran. I have the highest respect for our servicemen and women, but many Americans don't attach the same value to the physical scriptures as do many Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis. Note that this is different than accusing Americans of denigrating the books of faiths other than their own, although that is unfortunately not an impossibility.

We all remember what happened after the Newsweek article incorrectly reported Koranic abuse at Guantanamo. What do you think the reaction would be if there was an actual photo of a torn up book with some dumb schmuck who didn't realize he would engrage an entire religion.

Obama is turning back on his campaign promise to change business in Washington. His recent decision to reopen military tribunals, not release the photos, and not overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes me wonder why I voted for the man.

Obama and his Generals know the photos are elsewhere in the world, Britan perhaps? They realize that leaks and more leaks, Obama's,,,, then the Yes, then NO, is just hurting their credibility and the men and women in Uniform.

It's looking more and more that Obama is a man not fit for the job of Commander in Chief, with accountabilities and in an charge leadership style.. He's having his generals cover for him, as he has his handlers do every day. It's political,,, which is sad for the Troops. Obama is liking Gitmo more and more and may re-name it soon, to 'the enlightened camp of the USA frenemies",,,,,where everyone needs an intervention or 2. This administration is a joke in progress for Jon Stewart.

Well DUH!-- It sure would have been nice if they would have told Barack Obama to not release the past attorney generals memos on the enhanced interrogations technic too. Upps--forgot--it was just a political stunt to appease the ACLU & the moveon.org & the "Blame American first Crowd". In other words it was a move by Barack Obama to politicise National Security.

Now our enemies know exactly what is going to happen to them if captured. Thanks--Obama--They really needed your help.

ACLU lawyers are among the most dangerous enemies of the Unites States.

Read and learn you little bigot! (Source Wikipedia...I thought I should keep it simple for your tiny intellect).

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization which focuses on litigation and communication efforts, and the American Civil Liberties Union, a 501(c)(4) organization which focuses on legislative lobbying.[2] The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."[1][3] It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.[1] Founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles,[4] the ACLU was the successor organization to the earlier National Civil Liberties Bureau founded during World War I.[5] The ACLU reported over 500,000 members at the end of 2005.

Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the evolution of Constitutional law.[6] The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk. Even when the ACLU does not provide direct legal representation, it often submits amicus curiae briefs.

Outside of its legal work, the organization has also engaged in lobbying of elected officials and political activism.[7] The ACLU has been critical of elected officials and policies of both Democrats and Republicans."